Daulat Chand Singhvi v. CIT(A)

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Anil Goel v. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0710 (P&H-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1220 (Jod-Trib) IN THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. & RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. Daulat Chand Singhvi v. CIT (A) ITA No. 426/JODH/2019 7 March, 2024 Appellant by: Daulat Chand Singhvi, C.A. Respondent by: Nidhi Nair, Sr. D.R. ORDER *Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, A.M.* This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur dated 15-10-2019 (here in after CIT (A)) for assessment year 2012-13 which in turn arise from the Order dated 29-12-2017 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the ITO, Ward-2(1), Jodhpur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in view of the written reply by the appellant to assessing officer, the learned Appellate Authority grossly erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 200000 on account of diamond set received as gift by the appellant. That addition made on account of estimated value on account of increase in the market price with the passing of the time deserves to be set aside. 2. That appellant craves your leave to add, amend, and substitute the said ground before at time of hearing of appeal. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, information available to the learned assessing officer that the assessee has spent approx. Rs. 50 lakhs on marriage of his daughter, Smt. Roshni Singhvi which was happened on 9-5-2011. The fact related to dispute in this appeal is that the assessee regarding the source of marriage contended that his father deposited certain amount with Ambe Associates from where he withdrew the amount and deposited in fixed deposit for future liabilities. From the copy of the pass book, it appears that he encashed the fixed deposit at the time of house warming of in Jaipur in 2007. So, instead of giving the assessee to cash he preferred to buy a diamond set for her granddaughter as per copy of the bill given to the assessee at the time of such presentation of diamond set. As per the copy of bill it appears that he has made the payment of Rs. 3 lac against bill of Rs. 3,16,617 in view of this explanation, it is requested that the gift of diamond set estimated value of Rs. 5 lac may kindly be accepted and included in the expenses of the marriage. The learned assessing officer did not accept this aspect of the matter and made the addition of Rs. 5 lacs. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1220 (Jod-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH

S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. & RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M.

Daulat Chand Singhvi v. CIT (A)

ITA No. 426/JODH/2019

7 March, 2024

Appellant by: Daulat Chand Singhvi, C.A.

Respondent by: Nidhi Nair, Sr. D.R.

ORDER

Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, A.M.

This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur dated 15-10-2019 (here in after CIT (A)) for assessment year 2012-13 which in turn arise from the Order dated 29-12-2017 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the ITO, Ward-2(1), Jodhpur.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in view of the written reply by the appellant to assessing officer, the learned Appellate Authority grossly erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 200000 on account of diamond set received as gift by the appellant.

That addition made on account of estimated value on account of increase in the market price with the passing of the time deserves to be set aside.

2. That appellant craves your leave to add, amend, and substitute the said ground before at time of hearing of appeal.

3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, information available to the learned assessing officer that the assessee has spent approx. Rs. 50 lakhs on marriage of his daughter, Smt. Roshni Singhvi which was happened on 9-5-2011. The fact related to dispute in this appeal is that the assessee regarding the source of marriage contended that his father deposited certain amount with Ambe Associates from where he withdrew the amount and deposited in fixed deposit for future liabilities. From the copy of the pass book, it appears that he encashed the fixed deposit at the time of house warming of in Jaipur in 2007. So, instead of giving the assessee to cash he preferred to buy a diamond set for her granddaughter as per copy of the bill given to the assessee at the time of such presentation of diamond set. As per the copy of bill it appears that he has made the payment of Rs. 3 lac against bill of Rs. 3,16,617 in view of this explanation, it is requested that the gift of diamond set estimated value of Rs. 5 lac may kindly be accepted and included in the expenses of the marriage. The learned assessing officer did not accept this aspect of the matter and made the addition of Rs. 5 lacs.